На здаровье! (To Your Health)
Well, tonight saw President Obama’s “health care forum”. The ABC network has come under a great deal of criticism for its perceived kowtowing to the Obama Administration and refusing to sell ad time to the dissenting Republicans (can you imagine the outrage had the players instead been Fox News and President Bush, circa 2004?). The Republicans are calling the whole thing an “infomercial“. Media Matters is calling Fox News a bunch of hyporites (I guess whether “turnabout is fair play” or “he who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster” is a more appropriate slogan for the left’s sudden enthusiasm for uncomfortably close ties between the government and the media depends on which side of the aisle one hails from…). Meanwhile, reports indicate that ABC employees donated to the Obama campaign by a factor of roughly 80:1 ($124,421 to Obama, $1,550 to McCain) and Michelle Malkin is howling about “astroturfing“. Other statistics (“damned lies…” and all that…) indicate that 89% of Americans are more or less satisfied with their health care, raising the question of why exactly it’s so urgent to push through health care reform right now — as others have mentioned, maybe fixing Medicare first would provide an encouraging example of Obama’s brilliant ideas on health care — or is Walter Reed a harbinger of state-run health care (actually Walter Reed is state-run health care…)?
But never mind all that. The masthead says “a conservative journal of opinion” and, since we’re not getting any of that sweet, sweet, free stimulus money (and since we find the idea of the government bailing out newspapers utterly repugnant– sorry journalism majors), I thought I’d call attention to Cato’s crucial coverage of what’s poised to be a total health-care debacle — one of positively federal proportions. In any case, you can find an informative live-blogged response to the President’s err… “highly adversarial” appearance on ABC here.
And in case you don’t give two squirts of piss about the de facto socialization of health care in this country, I invite you to instead discuss this article, which seeks to establish whether or not the “FreeCreditReport.com band” is “legit” or not. But I’ll never respect you again.
Andrew, if you are an Obama supporter than you are a socialist. There is nothing wrong with being socialist, except for the fact that they are destroying this country for their own political gain.
If Obama was not a socialist, he would not be trying to give every illegal alien top notch health care and spending money like he actually had it to spend.
Today, we give health care to illegals.
If Obama cared so much about “redistributing the wealth” , why doesn’t he give any notable amount of money to any charity.
For international intellectuals (not corrupt college professors) Obama is worse than Bush. Chile’s last three Noble prize winners said that Obama’s plan will help their country more than the US. International countries don’t understand why he is so sorry, it’s because I believe he is trying to be a world icon more than our president.
In 2 years, all of you will wish W was president again.
What “Oregon Trail” was to rugged survivalism and the pioneering spirit, “Lemonade Stand” is to capitalism and free enterprise.
Lemonade Stand? That game is hard as fuck. I just got skunked on day 3.
Lemonade Stand taught me everything I know about capitalism.
Vincent you said it. Private companies can
Andrew – Is the Fed a government entity? I say yes. By that same token, yeah, LTD and OHA are public entities. They’re only accountable to the government – not to profit, not to their shareholders, government.
It would also be nice if you socialists could see some light between “the current mess” and “WHOO GOVERNMENT YES!”. Or if you noted that the current mess is largely due to governmental policy.
1 – Corporations can deduct health care premiums but not payroll from their taxes.
2 – Medicare is such a large player that they set reimbursement rates to a very high degree.
The first problem gives employers a big incentive to buy health insurance instead of pay higher salaries AND means that employees are not really the customers that insurers are interested in servicing. To BCBSTX I am nothing. My employer, however, is a a hugely lucrative client. Whose interests do you think they’ll serve?
The second problem leads to the sort of waste we see because doctors are compensated by test/procedure etc. An office visit doesn’t garner anything from Medicare or an insurance company – but doing a lot of tests does. Furthermore, insurance companies model their “standard” payment rate based on what Medicare pays. So despite having 100% Preventitive care coverage for dentistry I end up paying $30 every time I go to the dentist. The incentive structure thereby created is terrible for patient outcomes. Also consider that in one of the most costly areas – geriatrics – gerontologists typically make less money than GPs despite additional years of training because office visits aren’t reimbursed through medicare at a very high rate.
If these reforms are so grand, and will be so great, why not test them out on Medicare first so we can see? Medicare is wasteful, bloated, covers people who in no way need care…and everyone knows this, why not reform it and see how that goes then tackle the rest of the market? I’m guessing for reasons of political economy – The elderly vote, you can’t reform medicare without pissing off its beneficiaries, and then you lose elections.
Although I do have to wonder, given the results of this poll exactly why this is a MUST DO NOW ZOMG issue.
Sorry… forgot to say great post – can’t wait to read your next one!
Andrew – Is the Fed a government entity? I say yes. By that same token, yeah, LTD and OHA are public entities. They’re only accountable to the government – not to profit, not to their shareholders, government.
It would also be nice if you socialists could see some light between “the current mess” and “WHOO GOVERNMENT YES!”. Or if you noted that the current mess is largely due to governmental policy.
1 – Corporations can deduct health care premiums but not payroll from their taxes.
2 – Medicare is such a large player that they set reimbursement rates to a very high degree.
The first problem gives employers a big incentive to buy health insurance instead of pay higher salaries AND means that employees are not really the customers that insurers are interested in servicing. To BCBSTX I am nothing. My employer, however, is a a hugely lucrative client. Whose interests do you think they’ll serve?
The second problem leads to the sort of waste we see because doctors are compensated by test/procedure etc. An office visit doesn’t garner anything from Medicare or an insurance company – but doing a lot of tests does. Furthermore, insurance companies model their “standard” payment rate based on what Medicare pays. So despite having 100% Preventitive care coverage for dentistry I end up paying $30 every time I go to the dentist. The incentive structure thereby created is terrible for patient outcomes. Also consider that in one of the most costly areas – geriatrics – gerontologists typically make less money than GPs despite additional years of training because office visits aren’t reimbursed through medicare at a very high rate.
If these reforms are so grand, and will be so great, why not test them out on Medicare first so we can see? Medicare is wasteful, bloated, covers people who in no way need care…and everyone knows this, why not reform it and see how that goes then tackle the rest of the market? I’m guessing for reasons of political economy – The elderly vote, you can’t reform medicare without pissing off its beneficiaries, and then you lose elections.
Although I do have to wonder, given the results of this poll exactly why this is a MUST DO NOW ZOMG issue.
The OHA, if vested with real authority, would be an incredibly effective option in a competitive marketplace.
A “competitive marketplace” in which some of the actors involved are the beneficiaries of massive amounts of taxpayer dollars is not particularly “competitive,” is it?
Let’s say I’m a kid with a lemonade stand. In order to stay in business and turn a profit, I have to charge 75 cents a cup and my lemonade better be nice and cold and served up with a smile.
Let’s say I have a friend who also has a lemonade stand, only his dad is a rich bank robber that takes other people’s money and gives some of it to my friend. Since my friend doesn’t have to worry so much about his bottom line (he can purchase all his ingredients and cups and such with some of the money his father, who’s enriched himself on other people’s money, gives him), he charges 25 cents a cup. Moreover, my friend isn’t in the lemonade business to make a profit. He’s doing it as a “service to the community”, because everyone is “entitled” to lemonade. He badmouths my business because I’m “greedy” and want to make money selling lemonade, instead of basically giving it away for a pittance to all comers.
Eventually, my 75 cent lemonade can’t “compete” with his 25 lemonade, and I fold. But once his subsidized lemonade has run me out of business, things go downhill in the neighborhood.
Sometimes his service isn’t very snappy. Sometimes his lemonade’s left over from yesterday. And sometimes he accidentallyexposes customers to HIV and hepatitis.
it would eliminate exorbitant executive salaries
I can’t imagine why anyone would think that the government telling private companies how much they can pay their employees would be “socialist” in any way. As for eliminating “advertising costs”, I’m not sure “the new GM” got the memo on that one.
If we have a public option that focuses on health and prevention rather than an acute care, injury/illness model, we can consistently lower all other costs because someone will work with a doctor to determine how to stay healthy.
So, more frequent visits to the doctor will “lower costs”? An ever-increasing cohort of long-lived seniors will “lower costs”?
These provisions will lower rates so dramatically and give doctors so much more freedom… etc., ad nauseam
The “public option” is a subsidized trojan horse that, despite its thin veneer of “compromise”, will only have the effect of increasing government control over a(nother) large sector of the economy.
Reciting talking points from the President’s health care website and pretending that subsidies aren’t, by their very nature, anti-competitive doesn’t really do much to change that.
It’s like you’re trying to make a case for the FreeCreditReport.com band being the most artistically uncompromising musical entity of the last 20 years, or something.
The Oregon Health Authority is NOT a government entity. To claim that it is would be to say that Tri-Met or LTD, because they receive public subsidies, are government entities. But do Kitty Piercy and Pete Sorenson get to come in and call the shots at LTD? Hell no.
The OHA, if vested with real authority, would be an incredibly effective option in a competitive marketplace. Isn’t that what Sakaki and Vincent want?
Here’s why it’s the best option: it would eliminate exorbitant executive salaries, advertising costs, underwriting expenditures and all the other rate-hiking elements of an HMO that have nothing to do with delivering health care. If we have a public option that focuses on health and prevention rather than an acute care, injury/illness model, we can consistently lower all other costs because someone will work with a doctor to determine how to stay healthy. These provisions will lower rates so dramatically and give doctors so much more freedom that private insurance options will have to follow suit in providing better quality care at affordable rates.
This is pragmatic policy that works within the existing health care marketplace. It’s just that the competition are dinosaurs. And they know it. To drag your feet on a public option is simply corporate welfare. By not advancing on this, we’ll be bailing out the CEOs that understand they’re going to have to take a pay cut (“What?! I’m only going to make 60% more than my average employee?! Harumph!”) to stay competitive.
It’s not a government entity. It’s not socialism. To say that is to really prove a near-unbelievable degree of idiocy.
PS who is Senator Ryan Shitchack?
This one is easy. Obama and the dems are trying to spend your money to give bums, drug addicts and illegal immigrants health care so that they can use them as a 30-50 million person voting block.
Barry is a neomarxist who has been expanding the realm of the Executive branch faster than anyone else in modern history. Even though we give out billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid, he still runs around the world apologizing for what the United States has done. This step towards public health care happens at the same time England is moving away from their socialized health care to a more private HMO system.
At least the liberals in Europe call it what it is, socialized medicine, rather than the pukes here in the United States who rename it something else every year.
And remember, liberals want you to feel victimized so you run to their big government and need their programs. Laid off worker = displaced worker. Illegal alien = undocumented citizen. They change these terms around because people don’t like what the government has done regarding immigration and the economy.
If you want to give 30 million illegal immigrants health care then go with Obama. Can’t wait till the next revenue forcast…sure we are doing great!
Make sure you edit articles before you post them.
Considering I was a pitcher of beer, a bottle of wine, and half a six-pack into it at the time I posted this, the fact that there are as few errors as there are is nothing short of a miracle.
Andrew (Plambeck) just loves that the government is going to take care of when he masturbates, among his other health issues.
More doctors need to go Galt.
I’m never sure whether I’m more amused or worried at the common assumption that people working in the public sector are less greedy, corrupt, and self-seeking than people working in the private sector (and would thus do a better job at managing anything as important as our country’s health care). Even a casual glance at the people “serving” in the ASUO or U.S. Congress should end that false assumption pretty quickly.
Personally, I’d like to hear more mention made nationally of Milton Friedman’s proposed solution to the health care “crisis”: http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3459466.html
CJ – That’s unfair to eels everywhere. They at least serve a useful purpose in the ecosystem.
Did you actually include “Senator” in your name? That’s priceless. You and Barbara Boxer.
Eels, the lot of you, from top to bottom.
Make sure you edit articles before you post them.
Your use of the words, “I’m encountering difficulty” just made me think of Spock…
Anyway, I’m prone to think that it’s satire considering he said that we should put our faith in the Oregon Health Authority. One shouldn’t put their fate in most any facet of Oregon government as “Open” as it is they are a bunch of screw-ups.
I’m encountering difficulty in determining whether the previous comment is supposed to be satire or not.
The bit about “no government red tape” alone is enough to raise one’s suspicions. I’m pretty sure it’s a line taken almost verbatim from a commercial paid for by the Obama Administration.
De facto excuse me?
This is not socialization. It would be a publicly-owned, nonprofit provider. There’s nothing socialized or governmental about it. A board of directors would be accountable to the public, not to congressional appropriations, just like EWEB is in Eugene.
There would be no government red tape between you and your doctor. It would simply be an option to cut out the red tape of a multimillionaire CEO between you and your doctor. Give me a public option and do it soon.
Unfortunately, it won’t happen on a national level and so we have to put faith in the Oregon Health Authority. And if President Obama abandons the public option, he will have failed in reform and will be a one-term president.